Apr
26
2006Really Dumb Hyperlinking on InformationWeek
26
2006
Folks like Jakob Nielsen and Tim Berners-Lee like to complain that web-based documents today don’t use enough hyperlinks to provide the truly exploratory experience that the World Wide Web can offer. Today, I stumbled across a perfect example of how not to rectify this.
I was reading an article on InformationWeek.com talking about a Windows software update that nags users of suspected pirate versions of windows.
The article explains how a dialog box randomly pops up, and conveniently hyperlinks the words “dialog box”. One would assume this would link to a picture of the dialog box in question. Instead it links to… get this… an entire article defining “dialog box”. OK, thanks.
The article says that the user can choose not to download the update - and the word “download” is hyperlinked. Guess where? The definition of “download”.
This silliness is perpetrated on the words “web site”, “interface”, “FAQ”, and “browser” as well. One would think that someone viewing a technology web site in their web browser would not really need help figuring out what a “browser” or a “web site” is.
I’ve seen actual useful methods of providing definitions of unusual terms in web pages, usually via DHTML popups. I’ve also seen unfortunate hyperlinking of common terms to sponsored content - but these are usually differentiated by dotted or double-underlined links, maybe in an unusual color.
But InformationWeek is not linking to paid content, they’re not differentiating these “definition” links in any special way - they’re bona-fide regular old links to full-fledged web pages, with nary an “alt” tag warning you that you’re about to do something really, really, pointless when you click on them.
What in the world were they thinking?
Perhaps they weren’t thinking.
Dave 4/26/06 @ 4:20 pm